Ron Paul blimp charts unprecedented course

Text Size

The Ron Paul blimp is set to fly from North Carolina, over Washington, New York and Boston, before heading to New Hampshire.
Photo: AP

Instead of soliciting donations like a PAC or a campaign or a non-profit political group, Liberty says it’s “selling political advertisements that you can sponsor.”

By Friday evening, Liberty had pulled in nearly $150,000.

Each payment will fund a portion of the $350,000-a-month blimp rental fee and associated costs ($10 pays for 1-minute’s worth of advertising on the blimp, while $1 million buys 10 weeks, according to the website).

The plan also calls for a spotlight truck, remote-controlled blimps trailing the main blimp and paid support staff, as well as the 10-seat blimp, which measures 190-feet long and 60-feet high and until recently was leased to the U.S. Navy.

It’s set to launch Monday from Elizabeth City, N.C. Provided it gets the requisite government clearance, it’ll fly over favorite Paul rhetorical targets like the Federal Reserve and the IRS, as well as the center of the free market — Wall Street, before an event at Boston Harbor on Dec. 16.

That’s the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party and the day Paul’s supporters plan to contribute $10 million to his campaign.

A website planning that so-called “money bomb” has solicited more than $2.5 million in pledges, while the blimp website says its crew will “dump tea into [the] harbor” from the blimp.

Asked how that would jibe with littering laws, Collette, Liberty’s managing partner, said he didn’t see a problem.

“It’s not like we’re going to dump tons of it — just enough to be symbolic,” he said.

“It’s a natural ingredient. It’s not going to pollute the harbor.”

The blimp itself will be affixed with banners asking “Who is Ron Paul” and will urge people to “Google Ron Paul.”

The other side will feature the distinctive “Ron Paul Love Revolution” logo gracing countless pro-Paul web forums and blogs.

“We specifically left off any reference to an election, because most people do not care about politics,” the effort’s website explains.

“We want to bring them back into the electoral process, and messages like the ones chosen — distinctly different than the same old boring way of advertising candidates — will do that.”

Those messages might have been off limits had blimp backers raised money for the effort using a 527, since those groups can’t explicitly support or oppose campaigns.

Likewise, had blimp backers registered with the FEC as a political action committee, they would have had to report how they raised and spent almost every dime. And they would have been barred from accepting contributions of more than $5,000-a-year from any individual.

Things could get a little tricky, though, since payments of more than $250 to fund the blimp likely will be considered “independent expenditures” that require detailed FEC disclosure reports from Liberty’s customers.

That’s something that might offend the libertarian sensibilities of some Paul supporters.

But Collette said his company intends to make it painless to comply.

It will automatically produce independent expenditure forms for customers to print, sign and mail, which Collette predicted they’d do because “word has gotten out that this is going to bury the FEC in paperwork for the cost of stamp.”

He said the goal is to make a profit, then market similar services to supporters of other candidates. “It ain’t nothing like a PAC,” he said. “This is a business.”

It's great to see Ron Paul having such dedicated supporters. It's bringing the principles of non-interventionism, free markets and limited government to the table around the US, and it's not falling on deaf ears.

Why the heck does this guy always have that goofy look on his face? Is he stoned?

He has that generic 'grampa' kind of look.

I don't know about this blimp, but there's nothing wrong with a candidate having passionate supporters. I bet all the candidates wish they caould have the dedicated support that Paul is getting. His supporters seem to have the more creative ways about getting the message out, and I guess that makes us seem kooky. The fact remains, though, that the message is dead serious.

Intrepid -- Are you trying to say (since your statement really didn't come out right) that "It's funny to hear people call Mormonism a Cult, but not consider the same of the Ron Paul supporters"?

Was that what you meant to imply?

If so, then the reason this is the case is because the definition of 'cult' refers to:

1. Formal religious veneration 2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents; 3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents; 4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;

Hmm, so now to go back to your question as to why Ron Paul supporters aren't considered a 'cult', well it's because they are not an unorthodox religion nor are they a "system of religious beliefs".I.E., such as Mormons.

Now, one could define the word 'cult' as:

1. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book).

But in all reality the American culture doesn't typically use the word 'cult' when referring to these types of people. Typically, these types of people are referred to as fanatics. But in the case of Ron Paul supporters you can call them 'Patriots of Liberty' or 'Freedom Fighters'.

Regardless, people who endorse the Constitution, freedom, peace, prosperity, limited government and a non-interventionist foreign policy are not cultists. These people are our saviors.

It would be fascinating to see the MSM actually look at Paul’s ideas instead of paint him to be a mutant from some Nader DNA lab. The guy offers a serious alternative and truly challenges the course America is on like no other candidate. No one is going to agree with him on everything, but his vision of America is more clearly formed (that doesn’t mean he’s right, however) than any of the other candidates. He has by far the most consistent record and is one candidate that virtually every one would agree would offer the best shot of getting America’s spending under control. He would do more to restore basic individual freedoms than any other candidate and, for some reason, that means almost nothing. America is so drunk from the bottle of consumerism and celebrityism that she seems unable to look at the things that matter. Like I said, no one (myself included) agrees with everything he says, but his perspective deserves much more honest and visible representation. The amount of time and attention the issue of Mormonism gets compared to his vision of a truly conservative America is incredible. I ask you, what is more important?